Real judgements, distilled
Court judgements broken down into the case type, how the decision played out, and the lesson worth remembering, with the full judgement available as a PDF.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1094
An older qualification must still satisfy the eligibility rules governing the appointment sought. Here, the certificate's early date did not secure reinstatement, and rejection of eligibility should not be confused with a conclusive finding that the certificate was forged.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1095
A party benefiting from a conditional stay must meet its deposit requirement or face enforcement. The additional ₹15 crore deposit secures the pending dispute; it does not settle the land's final compensation or amount to an immediate payment to the landowners.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1093
An alleged attempt to kill does not become a lesser offence simply because the victim avoided a fatal injury. Restoring this charge means the accusation must be tried; it does not establish that the accused is guilty.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1090
For the assessment in this case, assistance reducing ordinary manufacturing costs was taxable even though the government wanted to encourage industry. The purpose and actual operation of the particular subsidy mattered more than its general development label.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1091
Proof that someone caused a serious injury does not by itself prove the additional ingredients of robbery. A court can substitute a lesser offence supported by the evidence; the sentencing reduction here depended on Appa's particular circumstances.
Special Leave Petition (Civil) · 2026 INSC 1092
Someone challenging an election must ensure that the personal-presentation requirement is met and can be proved. Merely entering the court building does not establish compliance, and a filing defect can end the challenge before the election allegations are examined.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1088
An employee who retires on 30 June may be entitled to the increment that falls due on 1 July after completing a year of service. Authorities that delay paying the amounts due must pay interest after the deadline set by the court.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1089
Recruitment must follow the qualifications stated in the advertisement and the governing Recruitment Rules. A court will not override a merit-based eligibility decision made under those rules merely because the candidate concerned was higher in the written test.
Writ Petition (Criminal) · 2026:DHC:8797
A person who occupied property only because of employment has no independent right to remain once the employment and decree end. Even when a petition fails, courts can make practical arrangements to let a person recover personal belongings.
14543 more judgements for members
You're seeing the newest cases. Log in — it's free — to keep scrolling, search by name or judge, and filter by court or legal area.
Log in to see moreThe U.P. Power Corporation advertised 2,974 posts of Technician Grade-2 (Apprenticeship Electrical), requiring candidates to produce a DOEACC computer-course certificate at the time of interview. Many candidates who cleared the written test and interview could not produce this certificate on time, so the Corporation's Chairman relaxed the deadline twice (first to 28 March 2012, then further to 31 July 2012) without this relaxation power being mentioned in the original advertisement. Unsuccessful candidates challenged the selection list in the High Court; the Division Bench held the relaxation was impermissible for want of advertisement notice, but as a matter of fairness upheld appointments only for those who submitted certificates by the first deadline (28 March 2012) and cancelled appointments of those who used the second, later relaxation, prompting appeals to the Supreme Court from both sides.
The Supreme Court agreed that relaxing eligibility conditions without disclosing the existence of that power in the advertisement itself is impermissible, citing its earlier ruling in Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudullah Khan that such undisclosed relaxation violates Articles 14 and 16 by denying other candidates an equal opportunity. However, relying on the principle that a court's final relief need not mechanically follow its reasoning (ratio decidendi) where complete justice requires otherwise, the Court upheld the High Court's calibrated remedy: protecting those who had submitted certificates by the first extended deadline (28 March 2012) because the delay was due to DOEACC's own slowness in issuing certificates, while denying the same protection to those who used the second, later relaxation, since ongoing recruitment cycles since 2013 left no vacant 2012 posts to reinstate them into and they had shown less diligence. The Court held no candidate has an indefeasible right to appointment merely from being on a select list, and dismissed/disposed of all the tagged appeals accordingly.
An employer's power to relax recruitment eligibility conditions must be disclosed in the advertisement itself to be valid, undisclosed relaxation is unfair to other applicants, but courts can still mould final relief to protect candidates who were victims of circumstances beyond their control (like a certifying agency's delay), even while denying that same relief to less diligent or later claimants.
